Positive-case-for-the-Union update #15
Posted on
April 19, 2012 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
A double whammy of upbeat happy thoughts from the Huffington Post today:
Stick with the Union and there's almost no chance of Salmond burning Holyrood down!
…but vote for independence and you WILL die of cancer. We're just saying.
My eyes are rolling so hard, it's making me dizzy.
I am cleaning my Barratt M107 sniper's rifle as I type this.
This eejit is, allegedly, a historian. I wonder if he is not so much looking at past history but looking forward. Perhaps he is, in his xenophobic way looking to have his name put down in history as a famous historian.
Well he WILL be famous all right. Famous for driving even MORE Scots over to the side of INDEPENDENCE!
In one of my many posts over at the Huffington I suggested that this decrepit individual would NEVER dare venture north of Watford Gap to make such pronouncements in Scotland. Let's face it if he did he would NEVER leave Scotland alive!
One other question. What are the chances that dear old "Auntie" will carry reports of this xenophobic attack in their news reports today? Nah, I didn't think so.
Such a shame so many outlets give that bigotted boor Starkey the 'oxygen of publicty'.
Certainly the story about the guy with cancer shows limitations of large single provider health care organisations in that they don't give you automatic access to a specialist. You need to follow a process that requires waiting time at each point of entry before you can advance.
This is something that they do better in Europe in my personal experience of two other countries(although you pay much more for it in tax and insurance). It does though in my opinion fly in the face of the claim that bigger is better. I think smaller and more easily managed is better. Overall he actually went to the US first which clearly is not NHS covered and so if we were independent his situation would be no different except potentially paying in London.
Unbelievable! They are still trying to paint A.S. as a mass murdering homicidal maniac and most of their posters are in agreement????? Not one shred of evidence has ever been produced that the FM is anything other than a decent guy. I've certainly never heard him vilify the English or any other nationality. To my certain knowledge he hasn't set up any gulags or death camps and there are no SNP brown shirts stalking the streets of Edinburgh panning in the windows of unionist supporters on command.
Starkey? More like starkers.
Silly Man !
Clearly a very very poor historian!
I've learned a lot from that Starkey article…….
According to the comments…..
1.North Sea oil was invented in the time of the UK so it belongs to the UK….and should saty with rUK……interesting observation that flies in the face of geology, international law and can I say for the first time in my life palaeontology.
2. I'm English and we're bigger and better but I like the Scots as my wife/cousin/dog/whisky/drug dealer/local jakey/dad/mum<delete as appropriate> is Scottish, but I'm fed up listenijng to you moaning Jocks so feck off(I'm paraphrasing here to take in a few comments in one point).………….. Why do they do that, its like they are personally insulted by the whole idea of self determination.
3. Scotland and England have hurt each other…….WTF
4. British Empire was not about attacking other countries, sometimes they were aloud(sic) to keep their own laws……how nice of us….
5. The Scots were the most ardent "British" imperialists…….you see you take a few Civil Service jobs, send a few lads away for an 18th/19th Century camping weekend expedition and next thing you know the sun never sets on your empire…I think we should do it all again. Just take over the world with a few gallus Glaswegians on the swally. Come on , it would be a laugh. I'm free all next year as I probably don't have the football at the weekend……..
Starkey is an expert on the Tudors, but has fallen into the trap of thinking he is an expert on the modern world. He me also just have a book/TV series to plug and a bit of controversy won't hurt
As always it's a pleasure reading the comments, well wee David is obviously trying to get a wee bit of airtime for flogging some piece of his opinion dressed up as fact.
One question Tomod.
Do you think that the xenophope is trying to flog his opinion as "Unionist" fact or historical TRUTH?
My bet is on the former, I don't think he does the latter.
The Jeremy Clarkson of history.
The Jeremy Clarkson of history.
Sorry Craig, I have to disagree there at least Clarkson has been known to be funny occassionally. The horrible little oink that thinks it is a good wheeze to equate Alex Salmond to Hitler is nothing more than a horrible little oink!
Embarrassingly bad effort by Starkey.
Does Starkey realise that the SNP's entry in the regional vote paper last year read "Alex Salmond for First Minister"? And that in the regional vote the SNP won no less than 69 of the 73 constituencies, if you consider it on a FPTP basis? That is, a majority of voters in 95% of the constituencies in Scotland voted explicitly for Salmond as FM.
If he now compares Salmond to Hitler, except Hitler had a better democratic mandate, he is saying something very unpleasant about the Scottish electorate. Basically, that they have been duped by his charisma into voting an evil madman into a position of power.
Is it not allowable to be offended by such an insinuation?
And what is this about the SNP not being democratically elected? It seems to be coming from all quarters. The d'Hondt system is PR, even if it is not perfectly proportional, and in fact insofar as it is not perfectly proportional it was designed to be weighted against the SNP. Nevertheless the party achieved an overall majority. If the Holyrood election had been FPTP (taking the constituency votes of course), its majority would have been even bigger, 53 seats out of 73.
How much more democratic do they want it to be for God's sake? I can only assume some commentators believe that Alex Salmond really did cast some sort of black arts spell over the voters, and forced them to vote SNP in some sort of trance. Is it because they themselves would never vote SNP, that they instinctively feel there must have been some coercion or illegitimate influence?
This attitide seems in play in the BBC and other media as well, as we so often discern an attitude that the SNP isn't a legitimate party or movement, and therefore need not be accorded any degree of respect or fair hearing. Also that any lampooning, no matter how insulting, is entirely justifiable.
There are a lot of people not "getting it" here, and maybe we should hope they go right on not getting it.
I have met a few folk who have worked with AS and didn't enjoy it. The feeling I got that because he and his team are "true believers", so they don't quite get people who have lives and families and can be brusque with them.
On another forum, mainly English posters, they have brought up this and 'Skintland'
I know from experience that if you try and debate tem, they troll you and abuse you. If you don't rise to the bait, or you stick to the facts with proof, they go in shufti, declaring you 'boring' for knowing your stuff. if you ignore them and stop posting then they feel vindicated and declare 'victory'.
They aren't bad people, but this debate confuses them, and they react with disdain and hurt at feeling rejected, and that might make independence more likely, rather than less
I think the unionist media have a SERIOUS problem whenever they have to deal with Alex Salmond and the S.N.P. Morag. The problem is that the unionist media are still trying, and failing, to try to come to terms with the fact that the electorate in Scotland are all of free will and free thinking. Depite this we still managed to return A.S. and the S.N.P. to power last year.
The unionist media never ever envisaged this result could possibly happen. It did. Not only did it happen but the S.N.P. gained, as you say, the impossible, an overall majority in Holyrood. The powers that be within the unionist media can not comprehend this result. As far as they are concerned we were all drunk when we voted. This is the only excuse they can come up with that helps them explain the unexplainable.
The unionists only believe in democracy when the "democracy" works in their favour. Unfortunately for them Scottish democracy did not work for them in May 2011. Perhaps they are still waiting for the reecount to take place. In your dreams Bubba!
I agree with you that there are a great many people not getting it yet. It is kind of crazy when you think about it. We are a year into the S.N.P.'s SECOND term as the party of governmernt and yet the majority of Scottish/British media SEILL do not get it. They have tremendous difficulty in comprehending the fact that here in Scotland we have all seen the S.N.P. in action as a government since 2007 and the majority of the electorate liked what we saw. Not only that but the actions of the "alleged" opposition parties were more akin to kindergarden playground antics rather than proper actions of a "grown up" opposition party!
That stiff upper lip is starting to froth a littlle.
ardroag, I believe you can get a rabies shot which will stop that from happening.
Or you can get your top set removed.
Charles Patrick O’Brien
I hope I can word this better,than I did before.
IF SCOTLAND WERE AN ALREADY INDEPENDENT COUNTRY WOULD ALISTAIR DARLING VOTE TO JOIN THE UNION? I think that is closer to the way I read it a wee while ago.
I read so many times that Scotland cant make it without England we live of the English taxes,they look after us because we cant manage ourselves,so as we are such a drain on them,why are they fighting so hard to keep on looking after us and paying for our education that they cant give there own,their generosity is beyond measure they would rather help everybody than hurt them.I think my pills are having an odd effect.I’ll have a cup of tea and a lie down.